Your reply is not applicable to anything I, or anybody here has said.
Let's look at it, shall we?
lyx2no writes:
1 - 3% atmospheric CO
2 on your planet. It's no wonder your thinking is askew. Have you ever tried thinking in English. All those fancy words, this coming from a guy who likes fancy word BTW, are not you friends. It's not the size of the word that gives it meaning.
Now why would I say this? Is it possibly because you, in message 25 said this:
the atmosphere is 'all too conveniently' some 75 - 77% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1 - 3% carbon dioxide as well as other gasses in the atmosphere represent the ideal figures necessary for the survival of living beings, consequently separating earth's ecosystem from the vacuum of space.
As your error is only off by a factor of between 25 and 83 I suppose you can be forgiven. It's only a little error, and we don't like to speak ill of the dead. NIOSH will only allow us to stay on your planet for 10 minutes because at these concentrations we'd quickly get confused and do something stupid like not leave, and then, and then, and then we're dead ” I hate when that happens.
It is an example of your continued spewing of things you know nothing about. I would say that makes it relevant (Elephant ” because I know you missed it earlier, too subtle).
The bit about big words not being your friend was also important, but you paid that no heed either because only seven posts later (#50) you thanked Nighttrain for his supplication. Did you bother to look the word up, 'cause maybe you should.
What did I say next?
lyx2no writes:
"That puddle of water thing" isn't about you; therefore, it is a poor way of saying " . [you're] solely suggesting creation by stubbornly outlawing all other possibilities." so you've gotten one right on a technicality. Don't let it go to your head.
Because you said:
homunculus writes:
That puddle of water thing is a really poor way of saying I'm solely suggesting creation by stubbornly outlawing all other possibilities.
Seems applicable to something you said to me.
I then went on to explain:
lyx2no writes:
The puddle is about how life fits it environment not the environment fitting life. Have you ever noticed that there are no gaps between the edge of a puddle and the hole that it is in. That is not because the hole is malleable but because the puddle is. No matter what hole the puddle is put into, it will form itself to the hole. The same is true for life. It will adapt itself to the environment it is in without leaving gaps at the edges. If the extreme temperatures of an environment are 0C and 100C, life will adapt to fit that range. You'll find no life there that can not tolerate that range, nor life that can tolerate long periods of time much outside of that range (nothing that live comfortably at 100C is going to drop dead at exactly 101C).
I was thinking as I wrote this that I should add some explanation along the lines of this being in regards to your repeated claim that:
. earth houses life on a plain of pain staking balances.
But then I thought "No, he'll get it. Fool me once .
This also goes back to the "thinking in English" bit because of the odd sentence structure..
lyx2no writes:
I'm glad that's fine. Is it another one of your rulings? (per message 25 . "I'm ruling that 'living' organic provision is required") But it's your elephant (this bit was poking fun at your lexiconificationist pretensions) whether a scientist digs ” unless he's in of these digging type of sciences ” a hypothesis or not; if it is indicated it is indicated; If not, not.
was a response to:
homunculus writes:
Finally, I understand the lot of you don't dig creation, that's fine.
Again, directly applicable it seems to me.
lyx2no writes:
homunuculus writes:
But I would request, for what it's worth, consideration for what I'm saying.
I request that you consider what it is you are saying.
How can this not be self explanatory? Ah! Fool me twice .
me writes:
you writes:
I said only that life producing life is all that has been observed. That is a very unbiased, although I am biased for creation, neutral and immutable assertion, Saying the contrary is strictly speculation, no matter the favor.
I have never seen a single person taking a poop. I expect you all to explode any minute now.
I've never seen it so it can't happen . get it now? It's only speculation on my part that other people poop . now do you get it? You know . that whole parallel structure thing-a-ma-bob.
Edited by lyx2no, : Spelling.
Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.